Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

rowuk wrote:

Amir, In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies. Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate!

rowuk wrote:

Tone: live music has „Tone“. The various octaves have a sense of pitch and softness and articulation all at the same time. Audio playback very seldom can unite these factors.There are hundreds of further differences. You seem to want to argue, but never provide details. I will not talk about synthesized tone from electronic or heavily DSPed music. Here there is no „reference“ tone (well except compared to the live PA sound...) and more (LF/HF/transients) is simply only more - not better or worse.

rowuk wrote:

Proper playback assumes that we understand the „Real“ geometry, that we understand articulation as it applies to voices and instruments. Only then does transient behavior make sense. It also assumes that we are familiar with Sound in space. Does the space fit the music, or is it too large or too small. Are voices plausible, not etched in space. LF and HF extension are optional when listening. Our brain can insert LF proxy information. At a live classical concert, none of the better seats has response over 15-16K and no one is bothered. Audio recreation assumes experience, not „smarts“. Knowledge in itself is useless. The practical application towards musical goals is a very big subject. Our path gets more valid the more questions that we ask - not the more answers that we believe to have.

rowuk wrote:

Funny enough, the west block orchestras did not make „better“ music than the east, in spite of „better“ instruments. The reason is clear - the musician makes the music, even the „lesser“ instruments are still „good enough“ in the parameters that count. I believe that this is also true for playback. We do not need the „best“ hardware for the „best playback“. The hardware has to be „good enough“ and in the hands of someone who makes it sing. If we start to analyse the finest playbacks, what do we learn? Higher distortion in SET? uneven polar response? Inconvenient to use? Ugly?I think not. I think that we learn that there is too much that we do not understand and that technical argumentation from audiophiles has NOTHING to do with Sound. That is the problem with this thread - more hardware than common sense.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site